Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false; the description adds the useful behavioral detail that accepted_outcomes are stored verbatim with no AI generation. It does not describe what existing outcomes are replaced or any other side effects, but the annotation covers the core safety signal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence front-loads the primary action, then adds the alternate deterministic mode in a parenthetical. No filler or repetition of schema constraints.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent write tool with no output schema and no param descriptions, the description gives the essential mode distinction but omits return behavior, the required-role_context nuance in accepted_outcomes mode, and how this leads into confirm_outcomes. Basic invocation is clear, but an agent is left to infer several correctness details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the two key params: role_context as the generation source and accepted_outcomes as verbatim caller-written outcomes. It still leaves source_job_id and instructions unexplained and does not clarify that role_context remains required by the schema even in accepted_outcomes mode.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Generate draft interview-plan outcomes') and a concrete resource, and distinguishes this from sibling generators by naming outcomes and the accepted_outcomes bypass. An agent can tell it apart from generate_competencies, generate_rounds, etc. without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives two concrete usage modes: AI generation from role_context vs. deterministic storage of accepted_outcomes. It does not explicitly route to siblings like confirm_outcomes or exclude any cases, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.